PURPOSE: To assess the value of amblyopia-related services by utilizing a health value model (HVM). Cost and quality criteria are evaluated in accordance with the interests of patients, physicians, and purchasers. METHODS: We applied an HVM to a hypothetical statistical ("median") child with amblyopia whose visual acuity is 20/80 and to a group of children with amblyopia who are managed by our practice. We applied the model to calculate the value of these services by evaluating the responses of patients and physicians and relating these responses to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The consensus value of care for the hypothetical median child was calculated to be 0.406 (of 1.000). For those children managed in our practice, the calculated value is 0.682. Clinically, 79% achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity, and the mean final visual acuity was 0.2 logMAR (20/32). Value appraisals revealed significant concerns about the financial aspects of amblyopia-related services, particularly among physicians. Patients rated services more positively than did physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Amblyopia care is difficult, sustained, and important work that requires substantial sensitivity to and support of children and families. Compliance and early detection are essential to success. The value of amblyopia services is rated significantly higher by patients than by physicians. Relative to the measured value, amblyopia care is undercompensated. The HVM is useful to appraise clinical service delivery and its variation. The costs of failure and the benefits of success are high; high-value amblyopia care yields substantial dividends and should be commensurately compensated in the marketplace.
PURPOSE: To assess the value of amblyopia-related services by utilizing a health value model (HVM). Cost and quality criteria are evaluated in accordance with the interests of patients, physicians, and purchasers. METHODS: We applied an HVM to a hypothetical statistical ("median") child with amblyopia whose visual acuity is 20/80 and to a group of children with amblyopia who are managed by our practice. We applied the model to calculate the value of these services by evaluating the responses of patients and physicians and relating these responses to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The consensus value of care for the hypothetical median child was calculated to be 0.406 (of 1.000). For those children managed in our practice, the calculated value is 0.682. Clinically, 79% achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity, and the mean final visual acuity was 0.2 logMAR (20/32). Value appraisals revealed significant concerns about the financial aspects of amblyopia-related services, particularly among physicians. Patients rated services more positively than did physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Amblyopia care is difficult, sustained, and important work that requires substantial sensitivity to and support of children and families. Compliance and early detection are essential to success. The value of amblyopia services is rated significantly higher by patients than by physicians. Relative to the measured value, amblyopia care is undercompensated. The HVM is useful to appraise clinical service delivery and its variation. The costs of failure and the benefits of success are high; high-value amblyopia care yields substantial dividends and should be commensurately compensated in the marketplace.